Archive for » August, 2012 «

The Guarantee

Friday, August 31st, 2012 | Author:

And He said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith, for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you.”  Matthew 17:20 NASB

Impossible – Wouldn’t it be nice to have faith like this?  We could fix all our problems in life.  We could right all the wrongs just as easily as moving mountains.  Isn’t this what Yeshua guarantees to those who really believe?  Of course, if that’s the way we read this verse, then it is certainly a condemnation of most of us.  We don’t have any excuses except lack of faith.  But if you say this isn’t what He meant, then you’ll have a lot of gymnastics to perform about the plain meaning of the text.  How do we resolve this dilemma?

Perhaps we can take a hint from something Adin Steinsaltz says.  “What we perceive as the dichotomy between ‘matters of faith’ and ‘indisputable facts’ has less to do with rationality than with what is socially acceptable within our particular society, social group, and historical age.  What ‘everybody knows’ is something that we do not feel obligated to prove to ourselves.  For the same reason, those things that are not a part of our accepted wisdom are left to the believer.”[1]

Steinsaltz’s insight can be applied to Yeshua’s teaching.  The words “impossible” and “faith” were what “everyone knew” in that culture.  They required no further detailed explanation.  These terms do not fit our definitions of “impossible” and “faith.”  It is quite unlikely that anyone listening to Yeshua thought about the impossibility of changing lead into gold or traveling faster than the speed of light.  It is just as unlikely that His audience thought of faith in terms of the Apostle’s Creed or the evangelical Sinner’s Prayer.  In order to understand what this text means, we must first ask ourselves what these people would have considered “impossible” and what they would have understood as “faith.”

When we pay attention to the culture, we realize that Yeshua’s statement is a rabbinic technique called kal vechomer (from light to heavy).  Yeshua is not teaching that anything you wish to do you will be able to do if you have faith.  He is comparing two kinds of “faith.”  The context of this statement is the failure of His disciples to exorcise the demon from the boy.  This failure leads to an obvious question.  “Why couldn’t we remove the demon?” Yeshua’s comment is about the mistaken conclusion that super-faith is somehow different than ordinary faith.  What He says in essence is that even the “smallest” faith is sufficient if used by God.  The comparison with impossible things reflects a rabbinic view that extraordinary works of the Spirit can be accomplished through the most ordinary believers.  The example of moving mountains is not to suggest that any kind of physically impossible act may be done through some spiritual means but rather to teach that even the most insignificant faith is more than enough for God.  Yeshua’s statement is rabbinic hyperbole aimed at teaching His disciples not to consider their failures to accomplish their own goals as grounds for questioning their relationship with God.  “Faith is not a measureable commodity but a relationship, and what achieves results through prayer is not a superior ‘quantity’ of faith but the unlimited power of God on which faith, any faith, can draw.”[2]

Topical Index:  faith, impossible, Matthew 17:20


[1] Adin Steinsaltz, Simple Words, p. 69.

[2] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp. 662-663.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | 4 Comments

Know Your “Nots”

Thursday, August 30th, 2012 | Author:

the one who does not love does not know God for God is love  1 John 4:8  NASB

Not – This is a harsh verse.  It may not seem harsh because we are likely to modify its meaning to accommodate our own failures.  We want to feel better about our efforts to meet its demands, so we lessen the impact of the verse by acting as though it says, “people who are not kind and generous and don’t care about others – they don’t really know God.”  But this is not what the verse says.  John is very deliberate here.  He uses two different words that mean “not.”  The first is me.  The second is ou.  He uses two different words because he wants us to see something very important.  We need to pay close attention.

Me means a conditional “not.”  It is the “not” that is governed by circumstance.  For example, “I may not go to lunch today” is governed by factors that might change.  This “not” is used in the first part of the verse -  “the one who does not (as a result of conditions and circumstance) love.”  The idea is that this person weighs the consequences to determine whether or not circumstances are in his favor before he decides to act on behalf of another.  John says, “This is not (ou, the second word for “not”) love.”

Then John uses the other word for “not” – ou.  This “not” is absolute.  It has no qualifications.  It means “never the case.”  John says that someone who is swayed by conditions in giving love never (under any circumstances or conditions) knew God at all.  This is about as strong a statement as you will find.  It is simply not possible to say that you know God if your demonstration of love is subject to weighing the conditions.  God’s love demonstrates itself by giving no matter what the circumstances and conditions.  Period!

Do you feel the incredible tension here?  How easy it is for us to want to water this down.  We want to say, “Oh, John couldn’t have meant that!  I always try to do the best thing.  There will always be people that I really don’t like, that’s just the way life is.  But I take care of my own.  And I give to charity too.  But sacrificing myself for everybody? No one does that!”

How sad it is that the church has accommodated to a culture of self-interest.  We have to be un-educated.  Throughout the Bible, love is demonstrated as sacrifice and undeserved suffering.  But putting that into daily practice means becoming a real slave of Yeshua, and for many people, that is just too much to ask.  They would rather think that knowing God with conditions for others is good enough.  I remember Yeshua’s judgment, “I never knew you.”   It’s very scary.  It uses the same words that John uses.

“Father, protect me from my all-too-human desire to lessen the impact of Your words.  Let me be all that You want me to be without conditions.  Cut away every inclination to weigh your command to love before I act.  I want to be what You want, nothing less.”

Topical Index: not, me, ou, conditions, love, 1 John 4:8

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 11 Comments

Dragging It Out

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 | Author:

He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty.  Proverbs 16:32  NASB

Anger – The Hebrew for “slow to anger” is erek apayim.  Behind this is the word ap, a word that describes the nostrils in breathing.  This part of the body is important in Hebrew thought.  Remember that God breathed life into Adam through the nostrils.  Because the nose is part of the context of breathing, it is considered vital to life.  Ap is also used to express the idea of anger.  Flared nostrils are a sign of emotional disturbance.  This sign is metaphorically attributed to God’s anger.  Sin causes God’s anger to flare since sin is a violation and an affront to His love and holiness and an attack upon life.  Sin is the opposite of what God did in breathing His breath into Adam.  No wonder this causes God to be angry.

Proverbs paints a wonderful image of God’s decision to withhold His anger.  This Hebrew phrase gives us an image of God taking in a long, deep breath through the nose before letting out His wrath.  God breathes deeply, letting His anger pass.  God counts to ten.  He considers our guilt and decides to wait before releasing His punishment.  Because God delays His judgment, we are called to do the same thing.  Just as we have been given a reprieve, we are to restrain our anger toward others.

This verse in Proverbs directs attention to the personal quality that models God’s character.  Those of us who know God’s grace, who have experienced what it means to have God withhold His anger, should show this behavior in our actions toward others.  We have every reason to do so, for we have experienced the long, slow inhale of God.

My wife and I have struggled recently over issues with children.  I doubt we are the exception to the rule.  The stress of child rearing often brings parents to that rough edge of anger.  But God is reminding me that my anger accomplishes nothing.  He knew my sins and still He delayed in order to allow me time to repent and come back to Him.  I am eternally grateful for His grace.  Why do I have such a hard time extending the same grace toward those who are so close to me?  It is so easy for me to forget the price of my redemption.  I focus on “not fair” instead of remembering what it cost for me to be set free.  God teaches by example.  He waited for me.  I must learn to wait too.

“Father, forgive me for rushing to judgment in my own cause.  I run right by your lesson in my life.  Help me to be a man of discernment, slow to anger and ready to overlook a transgression.  Let me model my Savior who waited for me from all eternity.”

Topical Index: anger, forgiveness, erek apayim, Proverbs 16:32

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 12 Comments

The Government of God

Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 | Author:

“For I, the Lord, love justice,”   Isaiah 61:8  NASB

Justice- Today the West is obsessed with democracy.  It so strongly believes in this Greek invention of self-governance that it celebrates when “democratically elected” officials are put into office even if those officials represent Islamic Jihadists.  Extending the Greek idea of populist power, the West sinks into political correctness on the backs of political corruption.  Marching hand-in-hand with religion, Church and government assume that the rise of the common political man will somehow overcome the resident evil of power.  After centuries of experiments in democracy, we see the results – and they are not to our liking.

The biblical view of government is entirely different.  There is not a single shred of democracy to be found in Scripture.  No word captures the difference more clearly than the Hebrew word mishpat.  This is one of those cases where the English translation pulls us into a context that does not fit the word at all.  We must always keep in mind that the Hebrew culture is a culture of Near Eastern nomadic tribes, not of city-states or empires.  For us, justice is a concept that falls within the legal system, one branch of our government.  But mishpat doesn’t imply a branch of government.  In the tribal system, mishpat is a word that covers all the government functions of the tribe.  Even more important is the difference in the concept of law and government.  We think of law the way that the Greeks thought of law – a system of rules that stands above any individual to which all are accountable.  But the people of the tribe do not think of themselves under the overarching laws of a government.  All of the law is contained within the leader of the tribe.  They are a people governed by a person.  Their leader who is the chief or the elder of the tribe rules everything about them.  His decisions are the Law.

In the Hebrew culture, God is the leader, the tribal chief and the king.  He is the personal representation of all governance.  He is the source and the administration of Law.  The word shapat really means “government” in this sense.  God controls life, administers life and makes the decisions regarding life.  He is the holy, benevolent, righteous dictator.

Now we can understand the wonderful passage in Isaiah, “the government shall be upon his shoulders.”  The Messiah will assume the role of the chief of the tribe – the tribe of God’s people under the leadership of the Messiah.  Now we see why God says, “I love government.” It is a statement of His rightful authority over life.

If you belong to His tribe, He is your King.  His government is your code of right-living.  Live your life under Him.  His government is the government of glory.

Topical Index:  government, democracy, mishpat, shapat, Isaiah 61:8, Isaiah 9:6

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 13 Comments

A Life of Shalom

Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Author:

“Do you wish to be well?”  John 5:6  NASB

To be well - Yeshua is making his way through the crowd at the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem.  To do so he has to pass by a pool.  Today, just like every day, it is surrounded by those who cling to life by a thread of hope, for this pool sometimes becomes the channel of God’s grace.  Legend has it that the first one to enter the water after an angel stirs it up will be cured.  So the square is full.  There are blind, lame, diseased, dumb, paralytics, amputees.  The vestiges of an occupied society.  The outcasts, the homeless, the beggars.  All of them waiting for a chance at new life, to be freed of their special form of imprisonment.

Suddenly the Master stops.  There is no particular reason to stop; in fact, there is every reason to get through this jumble of decrepit people as quickly as possible.  Yeshua stops in front of a man who has been waiting for thirty-nine years.  He asks perhaps the most ludicrous question imaginable.  “Do you wish to be well?”  If we stood in the crowd, we probably would have laughed.  Why else would this man be lying here every day for more than thirty years?

But there is more to Yeshua’s question than a qualification of willingness.  The Greek makes it clear that Yeshua does not ask simply if the man wants to be healed.  The question really says, “Are you willing to be generated whole?”  The word translated “be generated” means “to begin to be” or “to come into existence.”  It is the Greek word genesthai.  We recognize it from its transliteration – genesis.  Are you completely willing to begin to be?  Are you totally committed to a new existence – a genesis – a new start right now?  And that’s not all.  The Greek word that we translate “well” is hugies.  It means “healthy, sound and whole.”  Although the New Testament does not place the same emphasis on health that the Greek world did, the fact that Yeshua brought wholeness to many as a sign of God’s grace and power underlines His role as the liberator of a new life that embraces the whole man.  Yeshua asks this man about his motives, his passion and his commitment to restoration.  But Yeshua may well have intended more than the obvious recovery of this man’s health for the question reaches far below the surface.  Yeshua is asking him if he is ready to be reborn into a whole person, the person God intended him to be.  He is asking if this man wants shalom in all of its nuances.

Just how ready are we to do whatever is required to be generated whole?  This man was ready.  The encounter with Yeshua changed everything about his life.  The most absurd question was exactly the one that needed to be asked.  But God often shows up in the absurd.  Are you willing?  Well, are you?

Topical Index:  to be well, genesthai, genesis, hugies, shalom, heal, John 5:6

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 9 Comments

Death by Divine Edict

Sunday, August 26th, 2012 | Author:

In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive.  Deuteronomy 20:16  JPS

Remain – “Kill them all.  Every man, woman and child.  Even the animals.”  Does that sound like a compassionate God to you?  Commands like this one cause authors like Bruce Thornton to say that this “matter of fact attitude toward total war” was common among the ancient Near Eastern empires, including Israel.  Thornton claims that the Greeks were to first to humanize the enemy and recognize the terrible price of violence.  “[The Greek] insight into the horrible complexities of war and the price it exacts in human suffering is found nowhere else in the ancient world.”[1]

Most Westerners accept Thornton’s claim as true.  Arguments like his lead to the conclusion that the God of ancient Israel was a tyrant, vindictive and full of rage toward all who opposed Him, just like Ra or Marduk or Ba’al.  Even Christians stumble over God’s commands to Israel to exterminate the residents of Canaan.  With their Greek orientation, they find themselves embarrassed by a God who would demand the slaughter of all His enemies including the “innocent” women and children.  Verses like this one in Deuteronomy or the violent poetry of Psalm 137, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock,” send believers to the theological therapists.  Where is the God of compassion and forgiveness?  How can we serve a God who would endorse, even command, such insensitive disregard for human life?

This problem is not God’s.  It is ours.  Frankly, Thornton and others have lifted God’s commands out of the context of ancient Israel.  They have equated Israel’s action with all other ancient Near Eastern tyrants.  Thornton is not correct when he asserts that the Greek were the first to humanize the enemy and question mass destruction.  But to see why Thornton is wrong, we must first understand why God does instruct Israel to exterminate these people.  The Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Tiglath-Pileser and many other ancient rulers were vicious, ruthless and barbarous.  But they acted in order to gain or keep power.  Israel’s God had no need to achieve power.  YHWH has entirely different motives for His wars.

“The aim of this harsh policy is to prevent Israel from being influenced by the Canaanites to adopt their abhorrent practices.  The Torah regards preventing  such influence as a matter of life and death since it teaches that Israel’s security depends on the exclusive loyalty to the Lord and eschewing Canaanite abominations.  It views Israel as a small, impressionable nation living in a pagan world, with a record of susceptibility to the lure of paganism that made stringent precautions necessary.  To Deuteronomy, the Canaanites’ guilt in practicing child sacrifice – that is, ritual murder – underscored the necessity of forestalling their influence and eliminated any doubt that they deserved annihilation.”[2]

By overlooking the moral grounds for God’s action, Thornton lumps Israel into the category of all other brutal ancient cultures.  He never mentions the ritual murder of the Canaanites.  He never considers the need to excise the cancer of Canaan paganism.  He ignores the fundamental requirement for holiness and the absolute sovereignty of God.  But we shouldn’t expect him to account for any of these factors.  He has already adopted the Greek idea that Man determines what is good and what is evil.  Therefore, the slaughter of “innocent” people is always wrong, especially if commanded by a god.

It is impossible to deny that God demanded the extermination of these pagan cultures.  But is it just as absurd to demand that our assessment of God’s commandments is the only ethical standard.  Once again we are confronted with the moral issue of life.  Who will determine what is good and what is evil?  God determined that the Canaanites deserved extermination.  When we suggest that His actions were immoral, who becomes the judge and jury?

Topical Index:  remain, extermination, war, ethics, Deuteronomy 20:16, Psalm 137:9


[1] Bruce Thornton, Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization, p. 170.

[2] Jeffery Tigay, Deuteronomy:  The JPS Commentary, p. 189.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 18 Comments

Rewriting History

Saturday, August 25th, 2012 | Author:

and all who dwell on earth will worship him, every one whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.  Revelation 13:8  NASB

From the foundation of the world – What to do with this prepositional phrase?  That’s the big question.  The NIV and the KJV put the phrase at the end of the sentence.  Therefore, “from the foundation of the world” modifies the Lamb.  But the ESV and the NASB move the prepositional phrase so that it modifies “name.”  By moving this phrase, these translations rewrite history.  They obscure the teaching that Yeshua was slain as the sacrifice before the world was created.  According to these translations, the real issue is when your name was written in the book, not when Yeshua really died.

There is little textual justification for this change.  The Greek text clearly places the prepositional phrase at the end  of the sentence.  The only argument for moving it might be that the noun “name” is nominative (the subject) while the rest of the nouns (lamb, foundation, world) are genitives (showing possession) or that the prepositional phrase might be attached to the first verb (written) rather than the last verb (slain).  Sometimes Greek sentences do displace prepositional phrases.  But given the parallel teaching in 1 Peter 1:20 (“For he was foreknown[1] before the foundation of the world”), the decision to move the phrase appears theologically motivated, not textually motivated.  Leon Morris, a world-renown Greek scholar, comments: “From the foundation of the world should be taken with slain (cf. 1 Pet. i. 19f.) rather than with written (though some prefer to take it this way and understand it of election as Eph. 1. 4).”[2]  Even Morris notes that the decision to move the phrase is based in a prior commitment to the doctrine of election, not to the straightforward reading of the text.

What does this mean?  If we accept the NIV and KJV translations, we are presented with a statement that Yeshua’s sacrifice occurred before the world was created.  From a Western perspective, this seems impossible.  After all, history is linear.  Something cannot have occurred before it takes place.  Yeshua died in 30 AD, not before the creation.  But this is a Western view of time.  In Hebraic thought, history is seen in repeating cycles.  The cycles are not exactly the same as we find in Buddhism.  They are patterns which play out like a wheel turning as it travels down the road.  History goes forward (to use a spatial analogy) but it cycles around at the same time.  Furthermore, the reality of eternity is what happens in heaven, not on earth.  Just as there is a heavenly Tabernacle and a heavenly altar, there are also heavenly sacrifices.  The earthly representations of these heavenly realities are shadows of the truth, understood in part now, but somehow hidden in their full meaning until heaven and earth are renewed.

When the translators of the ESV and the NASB moved the phrase, they erased the Hebraic view of cyclical patterns and the Hebraic view of this shadow world.  They rewrote eternal, heavenly history to match our earthly sequence of events.  Without informing you, the reader, they simply altered the Hebraic perspective of Yohanan (John) and made his words reflect Greek thinking about time.  They also shifted the salvation argument by eliminating the possibility that Yeshua’s heavenly sacrifice preceded all human access to the Father.  In other words, this textual rearrangement removes the possibility that Yeshua has always been and will always be (since the foundation of the world) the only access to the Father even if the recipient of grace doesn’t know it.

Subtle, isn’t it?  Subtle and extremely dangerous.  The implications are staggering.  Suddenly we have a seismic shift in God’s timeline.  “Before Christ/after Christ.”  Not “always Christ.”

Topical Index:  foundation of the world, salvation, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:20


[1] The NASB translation of proginosko as “foreknown” possibly reflects a theological commitment to election.  The parallel Hebrew word, found in the LXX in Judges 9:6 and 11:19, can also mean prophetically revealed knowledge.  The question of the correct translation must be settled on the basis of an understanding of time in the Greek and Hebrew worldviews.

[2] Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 160-170.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 38 Comments

Exceptions to the Rule?

Friday, August 24th, 2012 | Author:

“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.”  John 14:6  NASB

But – It is common evangelical theology to assert that this statement from Yeshua excludes anyone who does not openly confess “Jesus” as savior and lord.  Many preachers will confidently say that unless you accept “Jesus,” you are going to hell (with the hand basket J).  They conclude, therefore, that even those supposedly upright, ethical individuals who actually demonstrate compassion and trustworthiness are nevertheless deluded.  They haven’t met the requirement of accepting “Jesus.”  They are doomed.

There are only two problems with this exegesis.  The first is that all of the faithful Jews prior to the resurrection didn’t confess Yeshua as their savior.  What are we to do with Abraham, Noah, Phinehas, David, Isaiah, Hosea, Deborah and the list of others from the Tanakh?  The standard answer is, “They lived before the Messiah came.  They worshipped and served God as best they knew, but now things are different.  Now that Jesus has lived and died, everyone must accept Him.  Those Old Testament saints accepted Him in principle because they looked forward to His coming.  But now we must accept Him as He has been revealed.”  There is some merit to this proleptic solution.  But it opens a very wide door that is difficult to shut.  If Abraham is saved because he looked forward to a Messiah whom he did not yet recognize, how is his favor with God any different than the grace God might show on the millions who live today without really understanding that the Messiah is Yeshua?  You might include millions of God-fearing Jews, but I have more than that in mind.  What about the Muslim who truly desires to serve God and who embraces all that he knows about God, but all that he knows is what Islam teaches.  As far as he is concerned, Messiah Jesus is a Christian mistake.  All he knows of Jesus is the animosity Christians have displayed toward Islam, beginning with the Crusades.  Does this man really know Yeshua?  Hardly!  He knows a caricature of the real Yeshua; a caricature that he rightfully rejects.  Exactly the same argument could be made for Torah observant Jews.  What do they know of the real Yeshua?  They only know the “Jesus” that the Church has portrayed, a Messiah that they must reject because that Christian Messiah stands in opposition to everything they know about God.  If Abraham can be saved on the basis of his knowledge of God, then how is that different today?  If you close the door on all god-fearers simply because they were born after 30 AD, what does that say about God’s grace?  Does God send a man to hell simply because he has never heard the truth?

You might be able to argue your way around this problem.  I doubt it, but then, who am I to say you can’t?  However, there is another problem; a problem that comes from Scripture itself.  It is found in Revelation 13:8.  The NIV translates, “the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.”[1]  1 Peter 1:18-20 supports the idea that somehow Yeshua’s sacrifice occurred before the world was created,  but wasn’t revealed until the event in human history.  In other words, the atonement for sin accomplished in the death and resurrection of Yeshua preceded (in some sense) the creation of the first human being.  What happened in 30 AD was merely the demonstration of this eternal offering.

If this is true, then Abraham, Noah, David and all the rest were “saved” because of this pre-creation sacrifice.  Their standing before God relied on exactly the same foundation that supported Paul and Peter and John – and you and me.  Abraham is not an exception to the rule.  His salvation depended on Yeshua’s sacrifice before the foundation of the world just as yours and mine.  He just didn’t know it!

Therefore, when Yeshua says “No one comes to the Father but through Me,” He is stating an eternal truth, not an evangelical criterion.  The eternal truth is that without His pre-creation sacrifice, no one, not even Abraham, comes to the Father.  But this is not a requirement of confession.  It is an ontological reality.

There are many people alive today, as there have been since Man walked the earth, who know nothing of the true Messiah, either through ignorance or through deception.  Nevertheless, they have hearts for God.  They are Abraham, and just like Abraham, they come to the Father through the Son even if they don’t recognize that fact.  It is the task of those who do know Yeshua to present Him in His historical reality, but that doesn’t alter the truth that He has been the needed sacrifice since before the world was created.  The evangelical claim that you must confess this person or miss the blessing is myopic and misleading.  Yes, if you know who He is, then you must do something about Him.  But if you don’t know, He is still your access to the Father.  He is just hidden behind the words, “In the beginning.”

Topical Index:  John 14:6, but through Me, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20


[1] We will have to examine why the NASB and the ESV change the order of the prepositional phrases in this text so that the verse doesn’t portray Yeshua’s sacrifice preceding the creation.  But that can wait for now.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 39 Comments

Siena, Italy

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 | Author:

Perhaps the most spectacular cathedral I have ever seen, except for the Vatican, this church in Siena had a room with completely illuminated walls and ceiling called the Piccolomini Library.  Enjoy.

Category: Articles, Pictures  | Tags: , ,  | 6 Comments

David’s Other Affair

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 | Author:

And they sought for a lovely young woman in all the border of Yishra’el, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the sovereign.  1 Melakim 1:3 ISR

Young woman – The opening story of 1 Kings is a very strange story to include in recounting the life of David.  David is old.  He has trouble sleeping because he is cold.  His servants come up with a splendid idea.  They provide him with a young, beautiful girl to share his bed.  Body heat solves the problem.  Hmm?

Aside from the fact that this story seems a bit too intimate and a bit too scandalous to include in the biography of Israel’s greatest king, there are some other oddities.  First, where is Bathsheba?  Couldn’t she keep the king warm in bed?  Perhaps she wasn’t quite so beautiful anymore, but something is amiss.  The king is sleeping alone these days.  Why?

Secondly, the Hebrew word used to describe this young woman is na’arah.  It is usually used to designate a girl of marriageable age, perhaps 14 or 15.  Not an older woman.  But this word doesn’t always fit the idea of a virgin.  Ruth is called a na’arah.  So is the concubine of the Levite (Judges 19:3) and a prostitute (Amos 2:7).  An odd word choice for sharing the king’s bed, don’t you think?

This girl’s name is Abishag.  The name isn’t quite right for the circumstances either.  It means, “father of mistake” or “father of transgression” or even “father of deception.”  And she is a Shunammite.  She comes from the village of Shunem.  The name of the village means “two resting places.”  It is south of Mount Gilboa.  Elisha the prophet was given hospitality by a woman in this village.  Her son is the one Elisha brought back to life (2 Kings 4:8-37).  The Aggadah suggests that this story of the Shunammite woman who provides for Elisha is the same girl who provided for David.

Of course, we might dismiss all of this by noticing that the text tells us David did not have sex with her.  But why include all this intimate detail?  Why do we really care what happens in the king’s bed?

Jewish interpretation of the passage points out that the issue is not sexual.  The reason the story is important is because this woman becomes a pawn in Adonijah’s attempted coup.  After Solomon becomes king, Adonijah seeks Bathsheba’s assistance to gain permission to marry Abishag.  It seems like an innocent request, but it isn’t.  Solomon sees it for what it is – a repetition of Rueben’s attempt to supplant Jacob as head of the tribe.  Adonijah isn’t interested in Abishag.  He is interested in the throne and wants to use an “official” relationship with David’s unofficial connection to claim endorsement as king.  Solomon executes Adonijah over this sleight of hand.

Jewish exegetes also point out that because David doesn’t have sex with Abishag there are no other claimants to the throne.  That’s why the denial of sexual intimacy is important.

What do we learn from this peek into the king’s bedroom?  We learn that the history of the dynasty is complicated, full of intrigue even over apparently innocent actions and unconcerned with the bit-part players.  But God isn’t unconcerned.  If in fact Abishag is the same women Elisha encounters, God’s presence is still very much a part of her life.  She might be nothing more than a hot water bottle for David, but she becomes a sign of great faith in her own village.  I imagine that she had to live with plenty of gossip.  I imagine that she found it difficult to explain how she could sleep with the king and not be intimate.  But God vindicated her.

If we needed prime time soap opera scenarios, the Bible gives us plenty of them.  That’s because it doesn’t whitewash its actors.  But behind them all is the hand of the Almighty.  You might ask yourself how you would react if you were Abishag, the young girl called to serve the king.  You might reflect on the fallout for your reputation and how you would handle it.  And you might ask why God let all this happen.

Topical Index:  Abishag, Shunammite, na’arah, girl, young woman, 1 Kings 1:3

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 5 Comments
« Previous Entries